And so, the curse of Paul Huge keeps haunting GNR. Counting from 2002, Axl has bi-annually lost a member of the RIR3 lineup, the core group of people who actually composed and recorded CD.

Next year, Pitman, Dizzy or Tommy.

Ok, let's be realistic and say Pitman or Tommy.

This one?

Izzy was very on and off when the writing and recording of Illusions took place. He'd just gotten cleaned up by the time the Chicago sessions took place in 1990, if memory serves me right. At that point, Slash, Duff and Matt were partying excessively and Axl was oftentimes AWOL, now spending time in past-regression therapy and whatnot. Axl's not as much off the mark as some people might think, as the later core of VR were dangerously veering into alcoholism / drug addictions and Izzy, a recovering addict, obviously didn't want to have anything to do with it at that crucial point in his life.

However, Axl seemingly forgets that the bulk of the instrumentals was completed somewhere in late '90, at which point he camped in the recording studio, putting down vocals and instrumentals. The mixing took an additional month or so... The album was ready to be turned over in July '91, I believe - Axl announced this on a certain UYI show.

His comments on a power struggle and the necessity to jolt others to work on certain tracks, however, may not be all that far from the truth, give or take some of the usual rose-red coloring of bitterness in Axl's tone.

Yeah, it was Del James. Makes more sense that way, but with a band like GNR the Ashba version would be just as believable - what does that tell you?

Anyway, HBK started a thread in MyGNR over tickets being on sale for the Taipei show, He asked Del James about it.

A personal response from DJ Assbat. HBK posts it, as well.

Hence:

Nice job, Del. That should really tone down the interest to what's been said.

It goes without saying that people were actually thankful for Del over at MyGNR for giving a hopeful comment instead of debunking it altogether. Another little bit of goodwill from the fans thrown aside.

Strange. I thought Zombie directed only one spoof trailer to the Grindhouse project, as opposed to a complete feature film. That said, it may his most entertaining output ever, although The Devil's Rejects with all its misgivings isn't as total a loss as I sometimes think. But the entire concept of Grindhouse is a bit hokey, since you're spending a good deal money trying to recreate the zeitgeist of the 70's, to get the grain and the colors just right, to justify whatever cheesy story decisions with the premise that you're doing a homage. Sorry, sounds pretentious, feels fake, falls flat.

Visually, the films may spark up a warm feeling of nostalgia, but they're in no way anymore earnest than anything Tarantino himself has made since Jackie Brown. In fact, they're as shallow as Transformers, only the style sheet has been changed from the 90's MTV hyperkinetics to 70's exploitation. While more approachable to the more seasoned punters, it is in no way any more sincere. Which is my personal problem with the Grindhouse films. They bow down so hard that any perspective is completely lost. All that remains is fluff - in a particularly pleasing wrapper, but fluff regardless.

Zombie's Halloween could've been something, unless it would've been one-half backstory, diminishing all aspects of the  anonymity and intrigue of The Shape by laying everything on the line and recreating Myers into a victim of circumstances, before turning into a fairly faithful, if overblown remake of the Carpenter original. The problem lies within the fact that the Carpenter film deliberately left The Shape open for any interpretation, as even the sister angle was an afterthought, introduced no sooner than in the second film. As Zombie recreates that film after writing everything Myers has done and will do under a case of unfortunate childhood, he essentially robs himself out of what made the Carpenter Shape so effective and is left to an uphill battle in making his antagonist worthwhile.

As his sequel introduces the white horse and ghost mother (the ol' lady needs to work, eh?), trudging with big boots all over in Texas Chainsaw Massacre/Friday the 13th neighborhood, Zombie drifts even further away from what made the original Halloween tick. While his films carry an arguable entertainment value in the sense that they're probably more watchable for the excessive quota of confounding insanity that goes into the plotting in the best 70's exploitation spirit, they don't really serve a purpose as films that'll leave you haunted for days.

Effective horror films may be exercises in style, but what really makes them scary is the tapping into the pervasive sense of the unknown. There are many examples of the ghost/monster/killer going unseen and unexplained, as well as seen and explained (up to a degree). Neither is a surefire way to make or break your antagonist. What does kill it more often than not is the overexposure through franchising. For example, Alien and Predator are such common stock items by now that they're simply a bit too hard to describe as unique or intimidating due to extensive pop culture familiarity.

The character of Michael Myers had endured rather well through hodge-podge direct-to-video sequels, as no-one in their right mind truly bought the druid angle, and the original slasher concept is so easy to revert back into. Your killer has no relatable features, no face, no distinguishable human qualities, so he's pretty to put to the suburbs on Halloween night on a killing spree. No clear motive makes any possibility of bargaining harder. He just is.... evil for his own sake, as if malevolence would help define his existence.

Consider BOB from Twin Peaks. No-one knows why the hell the guy's behind the living room sofa, who he is or what he wants. Then again, no-one bursts into laughter when he graces the screen.